On Friday 11 July 2008 2:55 PM Chris writes to Joe: I'D LIKE ALL OF YOUR TAKES ON THIS. Please. Joe. It's late and I'm not sure how well my brain functions at the moment, but your post produced this though of mine: If the intellectual level is the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake alone - Can this quest come to be without a distinct *I* to perform and be the vessel of that quest? Or is it so that the social level had to evolve to such a degree that it produced the basis for the idea of a distinct and separate *I* to form - and only when the social level had provided this *I* could the intellectual level emerge? Hi Chris and all,
[Joe] IMO The Intellectual level evolves from a conflict present in the social level. ³Culture hands us a set of glasses..² The conflict within self-awareness is best described as a mechanical/conscious conflict as a description for my actions. To ³always² do what I learned at my mother¹s knee destroys my individuality. I forget to be who I am. My actions are static/mechanical. I have lost conscious control of my life. ³Are my actions my own for which I am responsible, or am I mechanically following the crowd?² [Joe] The social level evolved from the inability of organic evolution to answer: Who am I? I am held accountable for my actions by finding a place in society e.g. child, parent. As years passed I followed ³culture² which mechanically defined who I am by my past action. I fall asleep. I go with culture. I forget I am self-aware. I cannot answer the question: Who have I become?. A bull does what a bull does. [Joe] Culture at the social level is a Bull. S Conscious, undefined behavior, becomes subject to O mechanical, defined behavior. The need arose for an intellectual level to evolve to place S/O in direct relationship. SOL! [Chris] Could this be it? That when social structures become so evolved that distinct and separate *I's* are created that provides the vessel for the intellectual level? [JOE] I would distinguish undefined ³behavior² S, from ³behavior² that is mechanically defined in culture O. [Chris] Couldn't Bodvar agree? Couldn't Platt agree (oh Platt, there is your beloved individuality!)? Couldn't Magnus agree? All of you? [Joe] IMO defined and undefined behavior at the social level is not sufficiently distinguished by ³individuality!² I must work on myself. Sleep now. //Christoffer Joe On 7/11/08 2:55 PM, "Christoffer Ivarsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'D LIKE ALL OF YOUR TAKES ON THIS. Please. > > Joe. It's late and I'm not sure how well my brain functions at the moment, > but your post produced this though of mine: > > If the intellectual level is the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake > alone - > Can this quest come to be without a distinct *I* to perform and be the > vessel of that quest? > > Or is it so that the social level had to evolve to such a degree that it > produced the basis for the idea of a distinct and separate *I* to form - and > only when the social level had provided this *I* could the intellectual > level emerge? > > Could this be it? That when social structures become so evolved that > distinct and separate *I's* are created that provides the vessel for the > intellectual level? > > Couldn't Bodvar agree? Couldn't Platt agree (oh Platt, there is your beloved > individuality!)? Couldn't Magnus agree? All of you? > > > Sleep now. > > > //Christoffer > > > > [Chris had written] >> This thing regarding the nature of the intellectual level has proven to >> be, >> well, difficult - to say the least. I think we can all agree that the >> nature >> of the intellectual level is that of a way of >> responding/understanding/seeing/etc Quality in ways that are different to >> the ways that the other levels /responds/sees/understands Quality. >> >> Most everyone of you are fully aware of the debate concerning the "Symbol >> manipulation" given by Mr Pirsig and other explanations and >> interpretations >> of the nature of the intellectual level - most notably Bodvars SOL. >> >> I myself tend to discard the symbol manipulation explanation because of >> the >> - as I see it - quite obvious reason that this is not in conflict with >> anything. The MOQ is a moral order, as we all know, and the different >> levels >> have more or less competing "views" on Quality and how to follow it. Thus >> I >> am inclined to thing along the paths of >> >> "What is not by it's _fundamental nature_ in service of either the >> inorganic, the biological or the social level?" >> >> As I said - manipulation of symbols doesn't really cut it for me - where >> is >> the FUNDAMENTAL conflict? >> >> Today I thought about "human nature". Human nature and what thing it is >> that >> is usually connected to the expression that it is in "the human nature". >> >> The Quest for knowledge. Embedded in us since - well, pretty much always. >> This drive that seems to be something that is a fundamental part of what >> makes humans humans, and something that - of course - may service our >> biological needs and our social standards, but that in essance is >> separated >> from these things, that in essance is something that strives towards >> something quite aside from these Patterns of Value. Knowledge for >> knowledge's sake. >> >> I am not sure that it *is* the Intellectual level, but it sure seems to be >> a >> most notable manifestation of it. >> >> Knowledge for Knowledge's sake. Alone. > > [Joe wrote:] >> Hi Chris and all, >> >> Evolution as conflict resolution, I like that. The INORGANIC reproduces >> by >> collision. The individual is changed, conflict is profitable. >> >> The ORGANIC level reproduces in two ways, by cell self-division, or by >> cell >> wall penetration by a sperm cell. What conflict has been resolved by the >> evolution of the ORGANIC LEVEL? The integrity of the one remains intact. >> More than one individual arises from within rather than from chance. THE >> CONFLICT of reproduction by COLLISION is resolved. >> >> The SOCIAL level evolves to CONSCIOUSNESS/SELF-AWARENESS. The individual >> knows changes are occurring, but an undefined self is untouched and alone. >> CONFLICT between the ONE and the MANY. >> >> The INTELLECTUAL level evolves. A structure of Law for S/O conflict in >> the >> one or the many. >> >> Does evolution stop? Interior relationships within one demand resolution, >> the tyrant and the citizen. >> >> HIGHER SOCIAL level evolves to enlightenment S only. A conflict with an >> Internal Tyrant???????????????? >> >> HIGHER INTELLECTUAL level evolves to enlightenment S only. A conflict >> with >> One does not exist???????????????????????????? >> >> Joe > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
